Subj : Re: How much should I charge for fixed-price software contract?
To   : comp.programming
From : gswork
Date : Wed Aug 24 2005 02:31 am


Randy Howard wrote:
> gswork@mailcity.com wrote
> (in article
> <1124785014.564171.281760@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
>
[]
> > Of course it is impractical and pointless to do this to an endless
> > array of hapless citizens who may be commiting minor misdemeanours, but
> > can be used against suspected criminals where stronger evidence is
> > needed for there more serious crimes.  Think Capone and tax evasion.
> > At least i think that's part of it.
>
> It can be used against anyone that the government decides to use
> it against.  Think of Clinton sicking the IRS on people that
> protested at campaign stops, for example.  You use that freedom
> of speech too loudly, (perhaps even on Usenet) and you find
> yourself the victim of what is described above.

that's the worry - if the definition of 'the kind of criminal we want
to catch' shift along to include people who are not actually engaged in
unethical acts (such as protest, or indeed programming closed source
apps according to that gpl thread!) then suddenly it is this mechanism
that is part of the problem.

>
> > the rest is just proliferation growing out of thousands of groups and
> > politicians saying 'why there should be a law...'    Some of the most
> > ridiculous laws ever come from the USA's own past when the federal
> > government wasn't as powerful and local legislation could enact all
> > kinds of foolishness.
>
> Sorry, but I actually disagree here.  States' rights have all
> but disappeared, despite the Constitution really being clear
> about the issue.  State governments and citizens both have
> folded on this one, and got the results they deserve for doing
> so.  There is zero reason why voting majorities in larger states
> like California, Texas, New York, Florida, Ohio, etc. should be
> telling people in Wyoming, New Mexico, Alaska, etc. how to run
> their local affairs.  It's mob rule (the nature of a true
> democracy) versus the intended governmental structure in the US,
> a Republic.  People that claim the US is a democracy are
> tragically misinformed.  Opinion polls of course just encourage
> this sort of ridiculous thinking.

i probably wasn't clear, i was alluding to some of those laws enacted
locally in the US by states or even smaller granules of political
dominion that related to things such as what you could wear on a
sunday, that kind of thing.

But indeed, States as such now are beholden to the federal government.

[]

> > Interest groups of all kinds focus on the group of interest to them,
> > unsuprisingly.  Using a simplistic illustration - if there were 10
> > people in a population of 100000 who could form a pressure group to get
> > themselves a benefit out of the government from taxpayers at a cost of
> > $100k they have plenty of incentive to go ahead and do it.
>
> And the federal government is trying to make such attempts (not
> the success, but the attempt itself) illegal.
>
> Of course, the dirty little secret to most political advocacy
> groups (lobbies, whatever) is that they become extinct if they
> actually achieve their goal.  It takes little time for a new
> group to realize that if they put out lots of press releases and
> newsletters their contributors will think they are working hard
> and keep sending them money.  However, if they actually get the
> law(s) passed that they want to, they will cease to be needed
> and the funding will dry up.  :-)

the irony of success!  But the key is to keep moving the target along
("ok so we got the target group enough food and shelter, but hey - my
neighbour has a dvd player and this group doesn't, that smacks of
poverty team, let's pressurise them senators!")

> > It's fairly understandable that people generally spend more time
> > choosing a dvd player or a holiday than researching and challenging
> > this law or that state handout - the effect of their personal decisions
> > on their life are easier to understand and in fact greater than each
> > individual law or tax alteration.   The cumulative effect of laws and
> > taxes on everyone is enormous of course, but it consists of so many
> > little grains that most folks wouldn't know where to start untangling
> > it.
>
> No doubt.  Part of it has to be they feel no power to change it
> anyway.  Even with /millions/ of people upset over an issue, it
> doesn't get changed.
>
> > You could model this proliferation in a computer program (yippee, on
> > topic again!) but without barriers and 'push back' forces it just
> > explodes exponentially.   You'd need to factor in push-back from
> > voters, some politicians, the economy and the threat of revolution.
>
> I am terrified at what the results might be of a model of
> governmental power, authority and (il)legal actions might look
> like down the road.  It would be interesting to figure out how
> to construct with any hope of accuracy such a model.

I've messed about with simplistic simulations of various proliferation
type behaviours based on a few key variables but it either explodes or
looks too patterned.   Most predictions about new ice ages, the ever
imminent collapse of society, escalating crime and so on also need ever
more attention lest they become very unrealistic.  they are essentially
unbounded problems and don't lend themselves easily to computer
simulation.  To produce any social simulation the problem needs to be
very bounded (e.g. typical escape behaviour in buildings works ok for
designing cinemas etc) or make generous use of arguable social theory
assumptions.  Still, it's a good mental challenge!

.